Slashdot Mirror


$7.5 Billion Kemper Power Plant Suspends Coal Gasification (arstechnica.com)

romanval writes: A coal gasification plant in Mississippi is iswitching to natural gas after 5 years of delays and $4 billion cost overrun. Megan Geuss writes via Ars Technica: "The Kemper County plant was supposed to be a cutting-edge demonstration of the power of 'clean coal,' and, despite running five years late and more than $4 billion over budget, Kemper was able to start testing its coal gasification operations late last year. The plant used a chemical process to break down lignite coal into synthesis gas, or 'syngas,' which was then fed into a generator. The syngas burns cleaner than pulverized lignite coal does. In addition, emissions were caught by a carbon capture system and delivered to a nearby oil field to help with oil extraction. That, Southern and Mississippi Power said, would reduce the greenhouse emissions of burning lignite by up to 65 percent. But with only 200 days of gasification operations under its belt, Kemper identified more issues with its technology, including design flaws that caused leaks and ash buildup."

26 of 154 comments (clear)

  1. No surprise by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    In 30 years of power plant engineering, this is no surprise to me. Coal gasification has been tried many times but it cannot pay for itself.

    CO2 capture is just as bad. Stop screwing around and get on board with natural gas, nuclear, solar and wind. Dump coal and dump Trump.

    1. Re:No surprise by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      I dump a trump once every few days.

    2. Re: No surprise by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      This. I'm tired of, for example, paying rich people to buy Teslas and take money from us. If solar and wind were better, they wouldn't need subsidies.

    3. Re: No surprise by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I'm even more tired of turds like you. You do know coal and gas get a cubic fuckton subsidies and tax breaks?

    4. Re: No surprise by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2

      Because Obama wasn't President enough? Maybe try objectively for once in your life.

      Maybe because both Houses were were controlled by the other side (and seriously obstructionistic to boot)?
      Kinda puts the brakes on what the President can get done...

    5. Re:No surprise by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Eventually coal will be worthless.

      Dig that shit up now. Do something. Sell it. Quick.

    6. Re:No surprise by dbIII · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Coal gasification has been tried many times but it cannot pay for itself.

      I expect they projected for gas prices that didn't happen. The Saudi oil price war has also had an effect on natural gas prices since oil can be substituted for gas in some situations. It's probably ten years back this was planned so they wouldn't see this coming and probably expected some spike in prices to keep on going forever.

      CO2 capture is just as bad.

      Here they seem to be sticking a label of capture on a practice of pumping some carbon dioxide down wells to force a bit more gas up. "Greenwashing" an existing practice that isn't going to trap more than token amounts of carbon dioxide - so not impractical just not doing what they pretend it's going to do.
      All that said it seems a bit strange to turn coal into gas in a place that's sitting near an oilfield where getting gas is pretty well a given - on top of the coal seam gas that's available in the min area as well.

      At least it's nowhere near as insane as the projects to produce gas by setting fire to coal in-situ and use the incomplete combustion products. All it would take for those to get out of control is an unexpected path for air to come in from the surface part way through the burn and you've got an unquenchable fire that could burn for years (like some existing underground fires).

    7. Re:No surprise by Pascoea · · Score: 2

      Coal gasification has been tried many times but it cannot pay for itself.

      There have been successful examples. It just comes from being innovative with your processes and monetizing the "byproducts" of the syngas process. I haven't been there in a couple of years, so I don't know the current situation, but last I had heard there was more money being made on the "byproducts" than there was on the syngas. Dakota Gasification in ND is a decent example.

    8. Re:No surprise by DanielRavenNest · · Score: 2

      We still need "metallurgical coal" to produce new steel. This is the fairly hard and pure coal that can withstand being in a blast furnace, where it steals oxygen from iron oxide to leave metallic iron. This type of coal is only 5-10% of thermal coal used in power plants. There are a few misc other uses for coal, but power and steelmaking are the big ones.

  2. Monorail? by Beeftopia · · Score: 3, Funny

    Monorail!

    "A small town with money is like the mule with a spinning wheel. No one knows how he got it and danged if he knows how to use it!"

  3. Re:Say What? by ravenshrike · · Score: 2

    Depending on the power plant connected to the coal gasification facility they can either switch immediately to natural gas or do so after some minor part replacement.

  4. What a waste. by Gravis+Zero · · Score: 2

    How many solar panels and batteries do you think they could have gotten for $4 billion?

    Just sayin'.

    --
    Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
    1. Re:What a waste. by iggymanz · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I cannot comprehend how what I see could cost a significant fraction of $1 billion, let alone several. For $300M, you can R&D, build, launch and operate a rover on fucking Mars! What the hell? I think this whole thing was just a huge scam and the players made their bucks off us.

    2. Re:What a waste. by triffid_98 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Given the massive glut of natural gas in the USA right now, neither coal or nuclear make much sense. So long as we have active fracking operations we're going to have a massive surplus of natural gas and using anything else is just plain silly. Running our cars on the stuff wouldn't be a bad idea either, it's not some radical new thing, that's basic technology that we've had since the 1930s.

      Yes there's wind and solar, but those account for only a tiny fraction of our energy supply and only when it's windy and/or sunny outside.

      Fortunately this plant was designed to run on natural gas, so all they had to do was feed it that vs the whole gasification of coal step.

      If we didn't have cheap natural gas that step might make sense, just like if you didn't have any oil it might make sense to turn it into a liquid fuel to run your tanks and planes with if you were somewhere in Germany around say...1942. Once upon a time fracking didn't make sense either, why do that when you can pump sweet crude out of the ground for pennies? Coal may not make sense right now but it's a plentiful fuel source and it's day may come again.

    3. Re:What a waste. by Pascoea · · Score: 2

      Have to correct my comment above... I used a Coal Based IGCC as my power plant example, costing 2.6B. A Gas Fired CC would be 1/2 to 1/4 of the 2.6B I suggested. My stance remains unchanged, $7B still isn't out-of-line with the cost to build a refinery and power plant.

    4. Re:What a waste. by iggymanz · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Sorry pal,you're talking to an engineer and I do have industry experience as scheduler. The problem of coal to nat gas (or hydrocarbon fuel for that matter) was solved in the 19th century. The plant under discussion *already* is a nat gas power plant. Lignite is not dirt, it carbon + hydrocarbons + water + ash. The volatile content is so high it's easy to convert to nat gas or other hydrocarbon and that has been done for decades. By removing the water, it becomes equivalent to high grade coal.

      Claiming it's essentially a refinery and then googling oil refinery costs is stupid and irrelevant.

    5. Re:What a waste. by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 2

      The rover(s) was build by engineers and scientists, who wanted to do a mission, probably change the world.
      That plant was build by greedy bastards, probably subsidized, never meant to make a profit.

      In WWII Germany had lots of coal to gas and coal to gasoline plants, worked just fine. We simply had not enough capacity to solve the fuel problems with them.

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    6. Re:What a waste. by Pascoea · · Score: 2

      Hey, not trying to attack you personally. But I do have first hand experience on the subject, I was a Project Manager for a contractor that did maintenance and capital projects at a coal to liquids plant, Lignite burning power plants, and a refinery. Granted, the gas plant I worked at used the Lurgi process and this one uses a different one, I can't imagine they are THAT different in the overall scope of equipment requirements. The processes obviously are not 1:1 between a refinery and a gassification plant, but the complexity and resemblance of the processes is striking. I hold that the comparison on construction cost would be reasonable. Looking at the size of the one in question it would definitely fall on the small side for refineries.

      As far as the Lignite itself, you are right is is not actually dirt, and I didn't intend to imply that it is literally dirt. But go ask anybody that has dealt with it and they will tell you it's like trying to burn dirt. The water content alone makes it a giant pain in the ass, and efficiently drying it to anywhere near the moisture content of high grade coal is no trivial task.

      Claiming it's essentially a refinery and then googling oil refinery costs is stupid and irrelevant.

      Comparing it to the cost of a Mars rover is any more relevant?

  5. Re:Hmmm... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Understand that most of the delay and cost was due to deliberate sabotage the Obama administration. They basically sat on all coal,permits and sent them back with comments at the end of he review period to,run out funding for the projects. It was blatant sabotage, in the way that only a bureaucracy can slow roll things, and completely legal.

  6. Re:Say What? by DontBeAMoran · · Score: 4, Funny

    I find posts made by BeauHD a little difficult to process. Is there any way to get posts made by Beau480P?

    --
    #DeleteFacebook
  7. Re:Jobs and the Electoral college by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 2

    American lignite is mined in Mississippi, Louisiana, North Dakota, Texas, and Wyoming. None of those are swing states.

  8. Burned by FoaK scaling by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    The obvious problem was their gasification gear was only tested at a small scale before committing to building all (as in multiple) the full size gear in one go "to reduce costs" (AKA the parallel dev that also burned the F-35 joint strike fighter) which means all the problems of running at full scale weren't worked out ahead of time on full sized prototype equipment. If they had built one set of full size prototype gear to inform the manufacturing of the rest of the gasification equipment, and a less aggressive schedule (BUT MY PROFIT!!!!!11lol), it probably would have worked out.

  9. How many homes could have converted? by RhettLivingston · · Score: 5, Interesting

    There are less that 1.2 million homes in Mississippi. The $7.5B cost of this facility could have put solar power in about 30% of them.

    1. Re:How many homes could have converted? by Huge_UID · · Score: 2

      How else will the coal mine owners pay for all their swimming pools and yachts?

      sheesh

  10. Re:Hmmm... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    No the WP only uses anonymous sources to attack the current President for imagined abuses of power, not to attack the prior President for his actual abuses of power.

  11. Re:clean coal by stoatwblr · · Score: 2

    Doesn't solve the atmospheric CO2 problem though.

    Apart from global warming (which many claim is a scam, I don't), there's a bigger uglier far scarier monster in the closet that comes along with global CO2 atmospheric spikes: Anoxic oceanic events. Look them up.

    There's also a fairly angry elephant in the room even if we dodge the Anoxia bullet: As a result of the increased CO2 levels, Ocean acidity has increased 30% in the last 200 years (Ph is a log scale) and is far enough acid to already be interfering with formation of corals and shells. This is "double-plus ungood" given that it means that everything from zooplankton upwards is affected and may result in a food chain collapse.

    There's also the slight problem of the Leptav Sea methane emissions (look them up) and the possiblity of 1-5GT of methane clathrates bubbling out if they're not stabilised. This is a Storegga-scale event with associated tsunamis and that much methane released in that short a period would have an effect not unlike what happened when the Storegga slides happened at the start of this interglacial ~9500 years ago. (That slight kick in temperatures, ocean levels and CO levels 9-10k years ago? THAT was Storegga and its aftermath)